Fo sho
Printable View
Fo sho
chaos: I think both of the candidates are okay really... but sure....
EDIT: Second option for me.... I guess...
I'd rather have someone who doesn't know where he stands and follows congress than someone who makes bad decisions. Reganomics ruined our country during both Reagan and Bush I. And now Bush II brought it back.
Not just that but the Iraq situation, and even Afghanistan. None of those were necessary. You don't need to bomb a poor country to hell to find one person, it just increases the ranks of the terrorists.
chaos: *Agrees* I'm actually in dillema. I dislike both of the choices for President.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebus
I am emigrating to USA and voting for Bush!
Why?
BECAUSE GOD DEMANDS
Evidence, and it's true cause it's on the internet:
http://www.triumphpro.com/cyrus_and_bush.htm
Quote:
What great world conqueror, world ruler, who is LIKE CYRUS – a man who is a humanitarian, who is benevolent, and God-fearing, who BELIEVES IN GOD and is not afraid to mention God in his public addresses and speeches?
Quote:
the “W.” in his middle initial stands for “Wonderful”"
Quote:
Why has God Almighty given the allies such a great, breathtaking victory and amazing triumph?
The answer – prophecy must be fulfilled!
Wow, he certainly is the man! I want to be like him when I grow up!
*sticks a crayon up his nose*
I'm with Shadow Nexus!
On the sticking a crayon up my nose part...
I don't quite understand much else.
About anything.
I'm voting for Kerry though.
Bush: Christian fundamentalist, divisive leadership, wants to impose his personal opinions on the nation rather than representing the people in general. Prepared to make rash, illogical decisions that have fatal consequences for his people and the innocents in other countries, again based on his own opinions.
Kerry: Prepared to consider the view of all sides and come to conclusions that may differ completely from what he personally believes, rather than substituting his own whims for the will of the public. Doesn't want his own religion to be the driving force in his nation's life. Doesn't view the world as black-and-white, us-and-them, the-US's-allies-and-those-who-must-die. Claims to care about the US's place as a member of the international community, rather than as an intimidating force that demands the subservience of other nations then brands as 'evil' anyone who does not follow his 'orders'.
The upshot: Bush is a dangerous religious zealot and a bigot. His short-sighted, self-serving ideas will kill more people, and turn the US into a dangerous rogue state if he remains in power. His close-minded approach to the diversity of the American people will run the risk of denying equal rights to many American citizens, because they don't conform to his own views on 'right' and 'wrong'.
As of yet, Kerry hasn't displayed many similar tendencies. If I was in the US, I'd vote for Kerry. He seems to be much more of a 'reasonable man', more humble than Bush. A man of religion, but not one who wants his religion to dominate the affairs of the nation. One who believes in individual freedom of choice, but acknowledges the views of all on contentious issues.
Shadow Nexus:[img]http://home.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/heart.gif[/img]
bush is great if i was a yank i'd vote for him, all leaders should be like him instead of being politicians.
Michael Moore for President
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satans_apostle
They both suck. But I'd rather vote for someone who will probably make bad decisions as president than for somebody with a documented history of making bad decisions as president.
Name one undisputable mistake bush has made and I will shine your shoes in a pink tutu.Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Christ
Let's, for a moment, assume the best of Bush. Assume that he really believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Assume that he didn't know what was going on at Abu Gharib or however it's spelled. Just in general, assume that he's always had the best of intentions. (Something I don't believe for a second, but just as a theoretical question) Then, he's still a bad president because he hasn't fired, or demanded the resignations, of these people that are apparantly running our country for him. For example, if he really didn't know what was going on at Abu Gharib, he should've fired his legal team the moment he found out they were trying to legally justify the US use of torture.
Furthermore, his administration is trying to justify curbing individual rights for the sake of "safety". But to quote Ben Franklin, those who would trade essential freedoms in exchange for temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety.
Finally, he has pretty much pretended the constitution doesn't exist. He's probably ignored it more than any other president in history.
Couldn't of said it better myself. :love:Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
OH HELL YES! :love:Quote:
Originally Posted by Satans_apostle
why would you replace someone you precive as an idiot with an actual one, plus he wears that stupid hat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satans_apostle
Is this another Bush-bashing post? I have to love them.
I think I should make some kind of nice seal thing...hold on...
*opens Photoshop to do some crap*
http://membres.lycos.fr/discepolin/bashing.gif
^^
Umm I think you have that reversed....Quote:
Originally Posted by gokufusionss1
The attached file summarises my opinion of how the candidates are dealt with by media commentators:
Bush isn't stupid.
I am sure he can spell caht
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...s/bashing1.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebus
I totally agree except the part about Afganistan, i think that was nessecary. But other than that i think ur totally right.
Kerry isn't a quantum physicist, either. That's not the point of the cartoon.Quote:
Originally Posted by TasteyPies
The point, as I see it, is something like this:
Kerry: Ambivalent policies reflecting the multi-faceted world and ever-changing circumstances. Gets criticised for lack of certainty.
Bush: Makes a concerted, honest effort but makes fundamental errors. Supporters claim it's the effort, not the veracity which is material.
it's still a biased cartoon, and quite short.
...Quote:
it's still a biased cartoon, and quite short.
Surprise. Which cartoon is not biased?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
Are you implying that it's a waste of time to be discussing any of this then?
I'd rather have a president with a backbone, who sticks to his discisions, rather then move to one side and then to another, like a flip flopper.
I'd rather have Bush in office then a president who's been a senator for 20 years, having the worst voting record in congress.
I'd rather have a guy in office who's probably been a-walled from national guard, then a guy that came back from Vietnam and dishonored his fellow comrades by going to congress and saying that his fellow comrades committed atrocities that he's never witnessed, and throw his medals on the whitehouse lawn.
I'd rather have a president in office, who believes we can fight terrorism, then a president who doesnt.
I'd rather have a optimist president rather then a pessimist president like Kerry.
I'd rather have a president who supports are troops, and the funding for are troops.
and last but not least
I'd rather have a Elephant for president then a Jack Ass. :)
Well there goes any reguard I would have otherwise paid to your post. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by noname
Doesn't it all comes down to whether you agree with the canidates' views and stances on matters, or not?
If you think Bush made the right choices and actions during his time, vote for him. If you feel he made mistakes bad enough for him to be replaced - vote for someone else.
End of deal. So you've got morose-face for a substitute... deal with it.
No. I am suggesting the cartoon is biased, because political cartoons tend to be biased to one side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martyr
Well duh they are biased, they are made to voice an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
Two points to make:
One: Doesn't EVERY single politician change their minds on an issue? Isn't that politics itself? You want a flip-flopper? Here's one: Zell Miller. THAT is a flip-fliopper. Bush has changed his mind about his policies, his stance on issues, even how he's worded a prior speech more than any President in recent memory not named Bill Clinton.
Two: America IS on a slippery slope right now and we're getting dangerously close to going down it. If we continue to act alone on everything, we will be alone, with no one to help us, no one to ally themselves with us, and we'll no longer be the Super Power we are today. I'm not saying this will happen in the next 4 years, or even the next 40, but the longer one attempts to separate themselves from the rest of the world, the more likely it is that the world will eventually overrun it.
This is a message for all Americans and citizens of the world for that matter: Whatever you do, go out and vote! There's a reason we have liberty and a reason that democracy works better than any other form of government and that's because deep down, the system does in some way revolve around the will of the people. However, if not everyone takes advantage of their vote, the true will of the people will never be known. Get out there, get registered, do some research, and make your selection.
Take care all.
Aye! *salutes*Quote:
This is a message for all Americans and citizens of the world for that matter: Whatever you do, go out and vote! There's a reason we have liberty and a reason that democracy works better than any other form of government and that's because deep down, the system does in some way revolve around the will of the people. However, if not everyone takes advantage of their vote, the true will of the people will never be known. Get out there, get registered, do some research, and make your selection.
pokemonQuote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
I mean political cartoons.Quote:
Originally Posted by gokufusionss1
Plus, Pokemon is pure capitalism! Ash is an exploiter that takes the freedoms from the Pokemon to use their abilities and rise to the top by using them! AAAAARGH! I HATE HIM!
If I was a Pokemon, I'd start a rebellion against all the Pokemon trainers. They treat them as inferiors even though Pokemon act like intelligent creatures if it was not for the fact they can only repeat their name over and over! (How come they understand their masters speaking but can't speak?). I'd kill Ash and stick his head in a stick, then expose it somewhere to warn the others. Bah, then I'd burn all those little villages with stupid names, kill all humans and start a new Pokemon world order Of Horror, where I would reign in my Throne of Evil in a Castle With Spiky Towers build on top of a Pool Of Wicked Lava. And I'd laugh evily while storms occur behind my Evil Gothic Windows, with lighting making me look Eviler and thunder echoing my voice.
Woah, I'd look cool, with a black cape and all...maybe even Russian or Hungarian accent, cause my Spanish accent is not Evil, specially since someone decided the puss in Shrek 2 had to speak with such accent.
you liar the pokemon are willing cohorts they are paid well for there services in food and cuddles,
No way, they are exploited workers bleeding for the man who enslaved them. Example of this is the line in the first episodes of the series:
Ash: Pidgey, your days of freedom are over!
Death to all Pokemon Trainers who force those poor animals to fight.
And death to Pikachu, for he is allied with them...
http://membres.lycos.fr/discepolin/kitty.jpg
Michael Moore needs to go back to the cavern he came from.
Bush and Kerry both suck. If I were old enough, I still wouldn't vote.
Never will.
.opt
Wow. Easy. First debate with Al Gore, Bush says "The vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom." Hmm...Quote:
Originally Posted by TasteyPies
Then you have no say in what's going on in your country. Silence yourself, if you do not wish to play the democratic game. Be quiet, if you don't care enough to vote.Quote:
If I were old enough, I still wouldn't vote.
Never will.
Could you be any more cliche?Quote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
The reasons I choose not to vote is because it is a 2 party system. I do
not believe in a 2 party system and thus I will not support it. If I were to
vote for a 3rd party I would become a tool of one of the parties.
By not voting I am voicing my opinion. No matter who is voted into office,
I had no part in putting him there. Imagine if 80 or 90% of the people in
America refused to support this system. What real power would the
government have? Close to none.
Don't ever try to tell me that because I choose not to support a
corrupt system my voice is any less important than yours.
.opt
Optium, you may like this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...135132-6499106
However, Saramago has another book where he describes how a democratic system comes down because the 83% of the population votes with blank votes. Not in English, though:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books
I dunno, if you don't want to support the system, vote in blank. I understand you. In the case I was in USA i'd vote Kerry to kick Bush out, but I understand your position perfectly.
Then the nation would either be thrust into anarchy, or become a dictatorship.Quote:
Imagine if 80 or 90% of the people in
America refused to support this system.
Oh no. The PEOPLE would have no power at all - the goverment, standing there, would have all the power it wants, since the people do not resist. And if they do... they'll either be crushed, or the coup is successful, and then - YAY! Anarchy.Quote:
What real power would the
government have? Close to none.
It's ALWAYS important enough to vote and voice up your opinion! If you don't, it means you have lost hope. It means you no longer care.
How so?Quote:
If I were to
vote for a 3rd party I would become a tool of one of the parties.
You don't HAVE a voice. You just said you gave it up.Quote:
Don't ever try to tell me that because I choose not to support a
corrupt system my voice is any less important than yours.
:rolleyes2
All I'm going to say is I am going to vote for Bush.
Do you have any reasoning at all? Or did you just spradically decide "I like Bush"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Escobar
I want to hear your reasoning.
You say the people would have no power. You say that the only way
people would have power is if they resisted, in which they would be
crushed. This is untrue. With the weapons owned by civilians in this
country, an army of around 90 million could be armed with handguns or
better. If Russian tactics of two men, one gun were employed, an army of
roughly 180 million could be armed. An army this size would be unbeatable
without the use of nuclear weapons.
It doesn't really matter though, I'm moving to Canada in a year or so.
.opt
You people are getting off topic, you aren't talking about how cool bush is.
Not to burst your bubble, but Bush is a very bad president.
That is your opinion...and I realy don't feel the same way. So no bubbles have been busted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TasteyPies
I agree. Politics is just a way of thinking, kind of like philosophy.... Nothing personal. :)
Go Bush 2004!
He was really cool yesterday, trying to get the latin vote: He said latin culture was cool cause the main virtues were faith in God, caring about the family and love to the country. He is right, they are. But in latin as in the Roman Empire during Augustus, when the pax romana, the moral of the mos maiorum, pietas et fides!Quote:
Originally Posted by TasteyPies
It was cool, Bush studied lots of latin. Quosque tandem, Dubya, abutiere patientia nostra?
He even tried to speak Spanish, and he had this awful accent that made him so cute. Awwwwwww :love:
You're moving to Canada?Quote:
Originally Posted by Optium
You know that MJ is going to be legal in Alaska, do you not?
And dude, we already covered the anarchy thing. It's a given that anarchy, revolution and communism are all bad things. America's system is the best there is right now. I friggin' wish that Bush used insanely brutal force now, since everybody hates him already. He should'nt have held back. He should've conquered the Mid-East under the guise of searching for nuklear weapons and we should've stolen all their oil while we were at it.
It isn't like anybody would have anything meaner to say to Bush than they do now...
If revolution was bad, than America itself would be bad, as we had to have a revolution in order to exist in the first place.
Communism is not bad. People who say that don't know communism. Communism has never worked, because people always abused their power. The communsit ideals are some of the best to ever be thought up. I am not a communist myself, but i have to respect what it really stands for.
Since when are revolutions and communism bad? I'll admit that anarchy in
this current day does not work, but the others have and are working as
we speak.
And yes, there are many movements to legalize in Alaska, I've donated
some money to the Marijuana Policy Project to help them with that.
.opt
all i can say is o_0 why vote for bush, he is a RETARD, and all the world hates him, if i could id vote for nader but i cant becasue iom an underage, communist, englishman (made by S_A's m8
Where? Cause I'll be moving there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Optium
Communism on its own is a failed experiment because as others have said, it all hinges on the people who run the system. In the countries that are still Communist: Cuba, China, North Korea, etc; there is a rapid movement toward a more open market, which goes against Marxist theory. It would seem that a good compromise of free enterprise with government control is becoming the "new" wave of economic policy in this world.
All I can say about Bush is this: A vote for him is a vote for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Tom Ridge, and John Ashcroft which scares the living heck out of me.
Take care all.
Communism is working in many religious orders such as friars. The point of
communism is that each individual must willingly be a part of the system or
it will not work.
.opt
Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't there no religion in Communism?
Take care all.
Government > People = Communism
Government < People = Chaos
Government = People = Democracy
fo sho
That's true. But I think that he was comparing Communism to, apparently how some monasteries work. I don't know if this is a true statement or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Captain
Actually something I find interesting is that the main communist motto - "from each according to his abillity, to each according to his need" - comes DIRECTLY from the bible.
This is really stupid. Was Louis XIV a communist? How about Napoleon? Hitler?Quote:
Originally Posted by TasteyPies
In America, the government > people, and we certainly aren't communist. Yes, it is true that in America the government > people, because WE DO NOT HAVE DIRECT REPRESENTATION. America is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy (the founding Father's made it a point not to allow "too much democracy"). Democracy is something more akin to anarchy.
Because Communism can't really be democratic, there has to be something to subdue the populace. Religion has been an excellent tool of communism in the past because it binds to people to certain traditions and mindsets. It prevents radical and liberal thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Captain
SO religion is often in Communism, but never freedom of religion. If there's religion, it's the government or it's something powerful and established and inescapable.
As far as Communism being bad, yes it is.
It's a wonderful idea, but it doesn't work. People are never going to make Communism work so it's bad. It's a bad idea. It's a bad system. At least, i live in south Florida where Cubans are the majority. They never have anything nice to say about Communism and they've experienced it first hand.
Think of Commuinism like a top of the line computer... That has a bomb in it.
It would be good, but it isn't going to work. It's bad.
And revolution/anarchy is only good wehen there's already a horrible disaster in place. Anarchy is terrible. Countries go bankrupt, people die, places get conquered, lives flip upside down... Anarchy is bad. Generally. Maybe the results are better than what was before, but anarchy is bad because the conditions that caused it were bad.
So that's bad too. That's my two cents there.
And I'm voting for G.W. I want to kill arabs and steal their oil. Gas is way too high these days. We should be totalitarian damn it!
Ideal communism has not yet been seen in a government. An ideal
communism would have freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and every
other freedom we enjoy except for a free market. The idea behind
communism is that everyone will be equal, the problem with this is that in
a nation of millions of people some form of government is needed to collect
and redistribute the wealth, this often creates dictators and then creates
severe inequality in wealth between the government and the citizens.
This is no better than the economies of medieval times of lords and
peasants.
In religious orders, however, each person who joins has freely given up
the right to his wealth. This is what is needed to make communism work.
Communism can never be forced on someone. In religious orders each
member takes a vow of poverty, then the head of the religious order,
often the pope, redistributes the money according to what each person
needs. This is another important aspect, the leader must be righteous,
not greedy. While there have been some sinful popes, most of them
have been righteous and not greedy and this is why communism has
worked there.
Communism has gotten all tied up with government when really that is
just a small part of it needed to make it run smoothly. Communism has
no rules about freedoms, it is only a form of economy designed to
create equality, many of the other connotations have been added to it
over the years by dictorial governments.
.opt
Yes, Bakunin wrote about his wishes for people to die and countries to go bankrupt. :rolleyes2Quote:
Originally Posted by Martyr
And I am not going to comment on the rest of your post, just tell you you have probably never read Marx or Fromm.
Yes and no. Marx critizized religion as a dogmatic practice because it caused alienation to a metaphysical entity, or in other words, because he considered it a tool to control the people.Quote:
Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't there no religion in Communism?
However, there are some religious touches in Marx too. As far as I know, he admired Zen philosophy highly and wrote about it. In a way, communism is similar to the ideal Zen society, as far as I have read in Fromm's book on Marx.
Really, read Fromm. And Marcuse. They have very interesting theories on communism and society.
I've read history books. They spill out all kinds of information about countries which have gone through revolution that fairy tales leve out. I understand the wonderful ideas behind communism. I also understand the wonderful ways it's affected the people who adopted it for their government. And, personally, despite the glorious humanitarianism of it all, communism seems to have turned out to be a dud idea.Quote:
Yes, Bakunin wrote about his wishes for people to die and countries to go bankrupt. :rolleyes2
And I am not going to comment on the rest of your post, just tell you you have probably never read Marx or Fromm.
Anybody can set out and try it again and see if they're up to the task of making it work. Good Luck! It'll be a first.
Personally, now that capitalism exists, I see no point. In America, all you have to do to be succesful is work hard.And you don't need a new country. The only problem is people who don't want to work or are incapable of it. And, frankly, I don't care about them. That's why I'm republican, mostly. Because I don't give a damn about the worthless people. I was poor once, and I utilized the capitalism in our government to alter the situation. So anybody who is poor, whiny, thinks he's being taxed too high, thinks that he should get more benefits from the government for doing nothing.... Screw him. Been there, done that. The US is perfect.
And if terrorists want to end this utopia, then I want to end them. Innocents and all. Flush the freaking Middle East down the toilet. They haven't stopped fighting in centuries. I'd end it.
Tell the single mother who needs to work 3 jobs to support her kid but
she can only work one part time because she can't afford a baby sitter
that she's a worthless person and she should stop being so lazy.
Then again I don't even know why I'm responding to someone who is in
full support of genocide. Get your head checked.
.opt
I don't feel bad for that single mother at all. Any way I can think of it its her that messed up her own life by making poor discisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Optium
Right because she can see into the future and she knew the condom
would break and that her boyfriend would leave her soon after.
.opt
No, I won't tell her that. Why should I? She isn't being lazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Optium
I will tell her that her situation is a shame and wish her very good luck. Maybe she'll make it out of her rut. It has been done.
Because there is no such thing as luck. Only things that happen from hard work.
We are all responsible for our situations. Maybe there was a problem like a broken condom, or a faithless boyfriend, or some unexpected disaster, but taking the risk of sex is still taking a risk.
Life is full of risks. We take them and we live with them.
We must all be responsible for ourselves. Helping somebody else out should never be an obligation.
I help people ot all the time, but I will never allow somebody to make me solve their problems unwillingly. You should have the same philosophy. After all, who, other than your family, has ever helped you out of a major problem. Probably nobody.
I've always walked alone, and not by choice. Anything I can do, andybody else can do. And if somebody is helpless, then cut them off the chain. I've become hard to the losers. They only repay themselves at my expense.
Not: Maybe genocide is too severe. I was just trying to use an strong example of extreme harshness to get my point across about how seriously I believe in eliminating what I hate.
There's a flaw in your logic.
"The only problem is people who don't want to work or are incapable of it. And, frankly, I don't care about them. That's why I'm republican, mostly. Because I don't give a damn about the worthless people."
But now someone who is incapable of working enough to support herself
and her child is no longer a worthless person in your opinion. You've
contradicted yourself.
As for no such thing as luck, you may be right, but there is such a thing
as randomness. Something you went through will not be exactly the same
for someone else, so saying that if you can do it so can anyone else is
bull. Maybe you were lucky, which is to say, random events happened
which were beneficial to you. While someone else may be unlucky, which
is to say that random events have happened which were detrimental to
them.
Helping someone else out should ALWAYS be our obligation. Making the
world a better place isn't a responsibility for the wealthy, it's a
responsibility for all people. I'm not a Jesus freak but I believe that was
the very best of his teachings. In the words of Gandhi:
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
.opt
Here's an idea, she could have waited until she got married.Quote:
Originally Posted by Optium
I never said she wasn't worthless. I said that I wouldn't call her worthless. Nobody needs to hear that kind of talk.
However, she was not an example of laziness, but, rather, an example of somebody struggling to survive. So she isn't really so worthless as much as she is in temporary financial duress.
But either way, I never said that I would do my particular best to support her. I'd wish her luck because any amount of worthless material or problematic content within our society is bad. She probably could use assistance and maybe, if I was the one to give it to her, I would, but she doesn't need it. People who recently were mugged and stabbed are the people who need assistance. They have no hope because a body cannot repair from that kind of damage without clinical treatment. This woman has time on her side. Especially in a democratic government.
But maybe your theory about being obligated to help these people is correct. That sounds right, and I would like to live my life accordingly. It's hard for me to accept that though, because I never see anybody helping anybody else. I find that most talk from democrats and Bible toters is completely hypocritical. Nobody helps anybody else, and, if you do help somebody, you'll most likely get screwed by it.
I wasn't born a pessimist, you know.
But, ultimately, communism probably won't help that woman either. Because her kid will grow and become capable and less dependant. By the time that he is able to produce, the woman will be beyond whatever communism would be able to offer her. (Not to mention that she would be a good example of the strain on communism which causes such ideas to fail)
Capitalism reigns supreme with me. And democracy has shown itself to be the most efficient advocate of capitalism. And Republicans have shown to be the most capitalistic of the two parties. So that's where I am right now.
Communism is gay, as is American capitalism.
And what do you propose, oh he of governmental heterosexuality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turk
Chinese capitalism? Where "The Poorest nation in the World" are terms that come to mind.
(Or are you saying that both governments are quite, uh, happy and pleasant.)
Years upon years of corrupt politics, self-serving politicians, and all sorts of cultural strife has starved us of what it means to be a decent human being and have led to more than a few people becoming completely cynical and turned off to helping others.
Yet, we cannot allow that to stop us from rising above the chaos, above all the animosity that has so filled our world and left us numb to one another. It's the consumer culture, it's the war culture, it's the TV culture, the pill-popping culture, everything that forces us to think only of ourselves and just ignore all else. Looking out for number one can only get you so far before you MUST begin to spread out and reach out. Only through togetherness and a willing desire to work with one another are we ever going to make true progress. Putting our own ambitions always ahead of everything else will only result in more of the same: a few rich folk and the vast majority of this world under the poverty line.
Surely, most who have gotten to that elite status worked hard for their position, but capitialism is more about luck than anything else. It's a game of chance, we all have the chance to succeed, but the deck is almost always stacked against us. Those who have more at their disposal, such as Old Money families, or ties somewhere within the already established can tip the scales more in their favor, but the vast majority of this world is left hanging in the breeze.
Some say Communism is the answer, but that's been proven false. Leaving the door too wide open for dictatorial rule is probably Communism's greatest flaw as it puts too much on the hopes that personal gain can be checked forever. That being said, Capitalism is not a perfect system by any means. It's been said, Capitalism is the worst thing out there, beside everything else and I agree with that. Yet, does that mean we should just be happy to be good enough for now and not attempt to find some means to improve life even more?
Where are the dreamers, the true thinkers of this day and age? Can we ask them to find us an answer? Somewhere perhaps someone has an idea that can change the world, and we must be ready to embrace it. To only believe what we have is perfect is a very scary belief, but to always be ready to move forward, now that is closer to any ideal concept of perfection. In order to find this new idea, we MUST work together and not turn our backs to those who many deem less fortunate or wasted life. We may be surprised by what we find among the forgotten, the people who have been stepped on and thrown to the wolves.
Those of us who still can dream, still can dare to challenge what is in place are the ones who may one day move us forward even more. The people in power now, be they Democratic or Republican have all but forgotten what it means to dream and have become bogged down in bickering for power, to keep what they have or take it away from someone else. What has become of this democracy, that once seemed so filled with promise? Do we dare to dream again?
I certainly hope we do, for I still think we can and must at all costs move forward, not be in a continual state of stagnation. I believe in every person I've ever met, that they all will do something great, and in every case, I've been proven right. Even if you fail at first, you must get up and try again. Don't let yourself be silenced or told you'll never amount to anything. Don't be swayed by the masses who claim not to have any answers, but rather look within yourselves and find them. If we can work together, as citizens and people of this Earth, not just as Republicans, Democrats, Americans, English, etc, but as people, then we shall see that it's not all black or white, right or wrong all the time, but sometimes can be beautiful shades of other colors, all of which can paint a vibrant picture for the future.
Keep dreaming my friends, keep moving forward and believing in yourself and one another.
Take care all.
Fun. I have read those too. That dosen't mean you understand the idea behind communism, or else you would not be inventing it like you are.Quote:
I've read history books. They spill out all kinds of information about countries which have gone through revolution that fairy tales leve out.
By destroying the other. Yay.Quote:
In America, all you have to do to be succesful is work hard.
Yes, you just need to work hard through your life, get money, be the CEO of some multinational that has reached through the top thanks to social and ecological dumping (in other countries or in the US) and make the goverment act according to your interests by investing in their interests. And when people hate you, just look down at them and say they could all be like you, they just have to forget any ethical values. Heh...like Scroodge.Quote:
The US is perfect
Quote:
And if terrorists want to end this utopia, then I want to end them. Innocents and all. Flush the freaking Middle East down the toilet. They haven't stopped fighting in centuries. I'd end it.
Yeah, they may bring great utopia down. Basically you are claiming that anything that oposes your shall-we-call-them-moral-values or may threaten your position has to go off. Yes, you are the perfect capitalist.Quote:
I was just trying to use an strong example of extreme harshness to get my point across about how seriously I believe in eliminating what I hate.
So you believe we are completly free and completly in control over our lifes?Quote:
We are all responsible for our situations.
Why do you believe everyone wishes to get married?Quote:
Here's an idea, she could have waited until she got married.
No, the biggest error in Communism it's that it is often not done by marxists. The other problem is that it is oftenly imposed through revolution, and this is violence, and here rises a question: Can a system created through violence stand without repressive forces? I can't anwser that. Is violence necessary to bring down a system? As far as history goes, yes, it is. Is there another way to change the system from the root?Quote:
Some say Communism is the answer, but that's been proven false. Leaving the door too wide open for dictatorial rule is probably Communism's greatest flaw as it puts too much on the hopes that personal gain can be checked forever.
I'm sorry man, stop it with the rebellions history has come over, can't you see anarchy is installed in the market? What if you think it is unfair for poetry to die? The sublime is to give a taste to the taste of the majority. Stop it with speeches on logos and nothingness, the wise thing is the latest reality show, it dosen't matter if the future is a tunnel with a dead end, we brought down the wall with the spark of life! Stop going nuts on the end of utopia, go a little neo-barroque and enjoy all the fun!Quote:
Where are the dreamers, the true thinkers of this day and age? Can we ask them to find us an answer? Somewhere perhaps someone has an idea that can change the world, and we must be ready to embrace it. To only believe what we have is perfect is a very scary belief, but to always be ready to move forward, now that is closer to any ideal concept of perfection. In order to find this new idea, we MUST work together and not turn our backs to those who many deem less fortunate or wasted life. We may be surprised by what we find among the forgotten, the people who have been stepped on and thrown to the wolves.
Those of us who still can dream, still can dare to challenge what is in place are the ones who may one day move us forward even more. The people in power now, be they Democratic or Republican have all but forgotten what it means to dream and have become bogged down in bickering for power, to keep what they have or take it away from someone else. What has become of this democracy, that once seemed so filled with promise? Do we dare to dream again?
I certainly hope we do, for I still think we can and must at all costs move forward, not be in a continual state of stagnation. I believe in every person I've ever met, that they all will do something great, and in every case, I've been proven right. Even if you fail at first, you must get up and try again. Don't let yourself be silenced or told you'll never amount to anything. Don't be swayed by the masses who claim not to have any answers, but rather look within yourselves and find them. If we can work together, as citizens and people of this Earth, not just as Republicans, Democrats, Americans, English, etc, but as people, then we shall see that it's not all black or white, right or wrong all the time, but sometimes can be beautiful shades of other colors, all of which can paint a vibrant picture for the future.
Keep dreaming my friends, keep moving forward and believing in yourself and one another.
Anyway, seriously, I cannot say I do not like your post, because you do speak very beautiful words, in the style of "Imagine".
However, I believe that for now, and in the times to come, hopes for a new future are quite scarce. So yeah, maybe we could just sit down, light up a cigarrette and watch everything crumble from some crystal skycraper with a nice view, as in some morbid reality show.
Then again, maybe we can all try, in some last desperate attempt, to do something that may at least make this crumbling less painful. Or maybe we can stop it. Quoting one of my favourite poets, Jaime Gil de Biedma, "it is the time to think that maybe the fact of being alive demands something, maybe acts of heores...or maybe just some small common thing, with a crust of terrestial material we can touch with our fingers, with a little bit of faith". Then again, we are down, and the ones up are the ones interested in this trout to be conserved are up.
As my friend Aute says, living is much more than a right, it is the obligation of obeying the order of thinking what and who is freedom, what is what we must do and expect.
Today society contructs the idea of living together as aparence. Well, I propose the challenge of destroying all of history, strategies, prophecies and memories.
And again, taking some verses from Aute (And translating):
But please allow me,
in front of this science and fictions
of emptiness,
markets and flags,
cosmetics and flashes,
to never renounce
to my uncurable nonsense
of kisses and wild dreams
Wow, long and pedantic post. :D
I sense a weary fatigue of realism about you SN, and you have your reasons no doubt. Yet, I have mine as well to be an idealist, to work toward a brighter future and continue to move forward and not be bogged down in the crumbling society around us. Rather, it inspires me more to press onward and not be stopped or overwhelmed.
My friend, I have seen with my own eyes the power of progress, of positive belief and of steady optimism. Perhaps not on the large-scale sense that we'd hope for where masses of people begin to care for one another, and begin to melt away the cynicism that has so engulfed all of us. It's in the beating hearts of all who fight for survival against genocide in Africa, in the people who even today work endlessly to cure AIDS, cancer and all other illnesses that have disappeared from under society's microscope, and above all else in the youth, the young of this world. We as the next generation of leaders have the power and ability to really change everything if we want to and do not allow ourselves to be turned into our forebearers. If we continue down the slippery slope of hatred, blind prejudice and just general intolerance, we'll only quicken our demise as a culture. However, if we really take the time to do things right, to find the right path and walk it, then the sky truly is the limits.
That being said, the only way to get to this place is for all of us to get there together. Both idealists, however foolish we may seem, like myself, and others who may have some doubt or think perhaps more rationally such as yourself SN. Yet, together perhaps we can find the way, step by weary beautiful step.
Take care all.
I am not a "realist". I never liked the word "idealist" either, by saying you are an idealist, you are saying your hopes are but pipe dreams never to be realized.
In May 1968, in Paris, there was a graffitti in the walls of La Sorbonne university, it said "Be realists: Ask for what's impossible". However, I must confess right now I feel rather pessimistic in front of the whole panorama. Our system, from base, is flawed. When I mean "from base" I mean I highly doubt voting the other party is going to solve anything. "You don't like Bush, well, you have the INCREDIBLE FREEDOM of voting another right winged party". No, thanks. In modern culture, democracy fails, because it is not compatible with the people. In a culture of demagogy and obedience, democracy becomes another form of dictatorship: It is not a game where you have a diversity of opinions to choose from, but a gigantic manipulation and two dominating parties. It is all a whole advertisment, it is just like when we are persuaded on TV to buy this or that soda drink. For democracy to really work, it is necessary for the people to be capable of making it work, yet this is not possible under, for example, the modern educational system, or the modern production system, that creates alienation and thus creates easily dominated people.
So yeah, what is the solution? As you said, some think it is communism. Is it? Well, I like it, but I can't say I don't see flaws in it. The final objective of communism is the emancipation of man, the realization of the community and the individual and, above all, the end of the State as we know it. Some say it's anarchy. I like that too. It's objective is the emancipation of man, the realization of the community and the individual and, above all, the end of the State as we know it. With different means from the ones communism uses, but the objective is fairly similar, with some few differences. But the problem is how to get there, because before any radical change can be done towards a new system, be it communism, anarchy, Plato's republic, Thomas More's Utopia or whatever far away arcadia, first a radical change must be made in the people. But capitalism is a temptation, because for some people, it creates wealth, and wealth many times can be considered a way for low phisically hedonistic pleasure. It is also a way to inflate the ego, to feel superior, to have some ass-lickers around you. It also means power, ambition.
We are in the land of the plenty, a plenitude that will some day destroy us. Most people strive towards this wealth as their final objective in life. That is not my case: I come from a wealthy family. I have been educated in one of the greatest elitist private schools in the country. I have seen la creme de la creme of the burgeoise. And you want to know something? It's not worth a trout. The life of the high and middle-high classes is not happy, it is completly empty and hypocrital. So yeah, I don't strive for great fortresses and fortunes, rivers to El Dorado, fountains of eternal youth, alchemy to make virtue out of vice or the hand of king Midas. Because it is hollow. HAve you seen Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane"? The movie opens in the great mansion of Xanadu, and focuses an old man in a bed, holding in his hands a crystal ball with a toy house inside it and the whole snow thing. He dies and drops the ball. His lasts words are "Rosebud". If you have seen the movie, you will understand that scene may be probably the death scene of every millionare in the western world. Actually, that scene may just explain life itself. If not, watch it. I won't say what "Rosebud" means.
So yes, I can say that from my point of view the ideal of capitalism is but a fake mirrage of L'Age d'Or. You can be poor, you will feel forced to work to be wealthy. If you are rich, you will feel all this work has lead to emptyness. It's a loosing game, no matter the team. It is not a society created for human beings, it is dehumanized. Yet, "the world is turning Disney, and there's nothing you can do".
As the song by The Beautiful South says: "The world won't end in darkness/ it will end in family fun/ with Coca-Cola clouds/ behind a Big Mac sun!". And I think that right now, that prediction seems rather probable. Is there a posibility of change? It all depends on the people, yet it seems difficult. In the 60s, there was a cultural revolution. Now the children of May 1968 work in the advertisment campaigns of multinationals. Do you think we can go from advertisments and fictions of emptiness back into 1968? That May is long gone, Saint Denis is long gone, long gone is Jean Paul Sartre, long gone is that Paris. So in the end, it all resides in that Paris, the only time and place where a ray of hope had been possible. It just needs to come back. It may. Bush winning the next elections may sound threatening, because he acts like a fascist, however, it may be the exclamation mark to lead to an awakening. More wars, more lies, more manipulation and more dogmatism may just be the thing you need for a change. Then again, the most terrible panorama is the possibility that will not happen, but we may end up in some new Middle Ages, with the voice of the TV anthennas as substitutes for God. I've seen the future, brother: It is murder.
Yet, as Leonard Cohen says:
For the millions in a prison,
That wealth has set apart –
For the Christ who has not risen,
From the caverns of the heart –
For the innermost decision,
That we cannot but obey -
For what’s left of our religion,
I lift my voice and pray:
May the lights in The Land of Plenty
Shine on the truth some day.
Woah, what a long rant.
Beautiful words for yourself as well. I suppose we'll agree to disagree about our future.
We've seen two sides of the same coin I suppose, as I've come from a poor family who worked their way up to a higher level and have only in the last few years known what it means to be financially secure. That being said, what always stayed with me was that no matter what, the people around me, literally thousands, always had my back and I had theirs into what formed as a sort of community of the willing, all striving in their little ways to make life better. Yet, a lot of little things ends up becoming a very large wave of good will and progress.
Idealism and Idealist for me means I hold true to my own ideals, which is something I truly believe you do as well.
Take care all.
Inventing it? Tell me what it is then? Am I really that out of line when I look at the disaster of communism in the past? Or maybe the fact that China is the poorest nation and Cubans are the majority in Miami, maybe those are hints?Quote:
Fun. I have read those too. That dosen't mean you understand the idea behind communism, or else you would not be inventing it like you are.
I think I offered that you may as well go start and reform communism. But don't try to plague my country with it. It's a screwed concept, no matter what beautiful ideas are behind it.
(Which are what, by the way? That people should all work their talents for the country and be satisfied with equality despite the value of their abilities? The problem with the USSR? Yes, they were elite. But things went wrong. COmmunism makes things go wrong and countries go broke. Tell me how I'm wrong.)
Survival of the fittest. Yes. What good are people who suck? In my opinion, anybody who hasn't reached lower middle class by the age of 45 should be neutered, at the very least.Quote:
By destroying the other. Yay.
You're not paying attention. I'm not filthy rich, I'm not stupid, poor or lazy. People like me, and, generally, I'm quite happy.Quote:
Yes, you just need to work hard through your life, get money, be the CEO of some multinational that has reached through the top thanks to social and ecological dumping (in other countries or in the US) and make the goverment act according to your interests by investing in their interests. And when people hate you, just look down at them and say they could all be like you, they just have to forget any ethical values. Heh...like Scroodge.
If you want to follow the path of a CEO without ethics or friends, go ahead. But capitalism provides such a vast variety of meduims of wealth that throwing out an example of what you don't want to be means only that. You don't want to be scrooge. So don't. Be most people.
Or may threaten my life. Once again I'll tell you, I have no concern for anybody who wishes to see me dead.Quote:
Yeah, they may bring great utopia down. Basically you are claiming that anything that oposes your shall-we-call-them-moral-values or may threaten your position has to go off. Yes, you are the perfect capitalist.
I don't know what suicidal section of your rusty brain has convinced you otherwise. Unless...
I can only assume that this statement is a sign of your resignation to my beliefs.
Do you have to rape people? If you must break the laws, then your going to have a lot less friends than even corrupt CEOs.Quote:
So you believe we are completly free and completly in control over our lifes?
But if you're not talking about breaking the law, then of course we're completely free and in control. Maybe some people don't know how to utilize control. I really wish that the US had a stronger education system. People really need to learn how to live before they go trying to make a living.
I don't. But as I said before, sex is a risk you take. I know a 16 year old girl with 2 babies. She let herself fall for this guy, he knocked her up a couple of times and left her. It isn't my fault. It's hers and his. But the guy had an escape plan. I think we should propose some kind of child protection plan for people who don't want marriages. Or something of the sort. Currently, however, marriage is one of the best forms of protection. Whether you want to marry or not, it may be a wise decision before you stop buying condems. And if you really don't want to get married, then you really have no right to complain when your stuck without a boyfriend, but with an infant, cyring pestilence to remind you of him.Quote:
Why do you believe everyone wishes to get married?
Uh, this wasn't directed at me, I don't think, but-Quote:
No, the biggest error in Communism it's that it is often not done by marxists. The other problem is that it is oftenly imposed through revolution, and this is violence, and here rises a question: Can a system created through violence stand without repressive forces? I can't anwser that. Is violence necessary to bring down a system? As far as history goes, yes, it is. Is there another way to change the system from the root?
Instead of communism, you can go Capitalist!
Note: Captain, it's lovely to hear the voice of your kind every once in a while. I'll always with the idealists luck (If that's what you must call tourself), but I am a conservative. Impress me someday.
If people are going to flame one another in this thread, I might as well close it.
Feel free to debate and discuss, disagree and dispute. But if anyone wants to say, "your ideas suck and you suck for not agreeing with me", then they can do it somewhere else. Heed the words of Dr Unne if there's still any doubt about what goes and what doesn't.
My thoughts?
Communism is good in theory - universal equality and whatnot - but human weakness, especially greed, is so strong that it's almost always going to undermine the system. Like anarchy, communism is dependent on everyone being nice and moral. As soon as one person wants to have more power, things turn sour. Capitalism sometimes actively promotes exploitation, oppression and amoral pursuits; those notions can lead to success within the capitalistic system.[q=Martyr]In my opinion, anybody who hasn't reached lower middle class by the age of 45 should be neutered, at the very least.
[/q]People lose money without being incompetent, sometimes. Lots of times, actually. Financial collapses, high-risk investments, even something like getting an expensive education can lead to poverty. If you judge someone's "worth" as a human being based on how much money they have, then the amoral financial perspective has taken dominance. Money indicates nothing more than a person's ability to acquire capital.
No system is perfect, as people are often imperfect. Communism is imperfect, to the point where a 'truly communist' state has never really existed. Capitalism is also flawed, as its theory undermines the value of human life - in fact, the value of all life and non-profiteering ventures.
So what's the solution, then?
Simple: Everyone decides what they want to believe in. If enough people want to live in a particular way, then the democratic process will let that way come to dominance. It's petty that one system should feel compelled to annihilate everything that disagrees with its own dogma.
Now, no more insults or abuse from anyone. This thread's gone wildly off-topic as it is; don't give me an extra excuse to close it.
Uh... If somebody lost money, then they had it to begin with. That means that they've experienced, understood, and have accomplished the goal of at least lower middle class.
Anybody can lose money by 45. But some people are too incompetent to make it by then.
And maybe those people shouldn't be neutered (Maybe they should), but, honestly now, are there really any redeeming properties for such people at all? Nah.
And I never flamed anybody. If I did, then I want a quote! Because I can justify anything I say.
[q=Martyr]And maybe those people shouldn't be neutered (Maybe they should), but, honestly now, are there really any redeeming properties for such people at all? Nah.[/q]Poverty cycle? Societal forces are very strong; generations of deprivation and institutionalised discrimination can have effects that take years to undo. Some people aren't wholly responsible for their life circumstances. Some people choose not to pursue careers of wealth - members of certain Christian/Muslim/other religious groups who spend their time helping others rather than pursuing their own ends. Devout Buddhists and others choose not to acquire physical property. Others do so out of a wholly moral motivation.
Some people never have money to begin with. I'm at university studying toward a certain degree. I'm using a government loan to pay for it all. I'll be in debt for decades after I graduate; many graduates can't find a 'real' job and owes thousands for their entire lives. Nothing wrong with them as people; they just weren't able to get what they hoped for.
Some people are unable to work for other reasons - illness, injury, mental health, poor education.
There are too many reasons why there are poor people; blaming the poor for having no money is like blaming the hungry for having no food.
However, I too have little time for those who could earn a living but merely choose to bludge off the state instead.Quote:
And I never flamed anybody. If I did, then I want a quote!
Deliberately insulting, provocative statement.Quote:
I don't know what suicidal section of your rusty brain has convinced you otherwise. Unless...
I can only assume that this statement is a sign of your resignation to my beliefs.
Your opinion of whether you can justify a statement has little to do with it. A flame is a flame. Besides, my warning to everyone called for "no more insults or abuse"; there's an element of pre-emption. Giving people a chance to steer this thread from the course it was beginning to take. Being... proactive, maybe even nice, rather than waiting around for things to turn really bad then simply closing the topic without a word.Quote:
Because I can justify anything I say.
Maybe it's also a hint for you to know Marx's philosophy was never published completly until 1936, and that Mao probably had not read it. As for Cuba? Maybe certain blocking has to do with the stagnation in the country.Quote:
Am I really that out of line when I look at the disaster of communism in the past? Or maybe the fact that China is the poorest nation and Cubans are the majority in Miami, maybe those are hints?
According to Marx, communism works when applied to a capitalistic industrial society (He took XIXth century London and Paris as examples). Has it ever happened there? However, Marx was wrong about capitalism, it's far worse than he ever predicted, he forgot capitalism can adapt and alienate more than any other system (Asides from fundamentalism).
You said "innocents and all". You may think terrorists threaten your life, but I seriously doubt the whole Middle East does.Quote:
Or may threaten my life. Once again I'll tell you, I have no concern for anybody who wishes to see me dead.
I don't know what suicidal section of your rusty brain has convinced you otherwise. Unless...
And as for the second part, as Big D said, flaming is not allowed. Not that I care, because you'll really need to try better if you intend to offend me.
Well, I don't agree with your beliefs at all, that is preety obvious.Quote:
I can only assume that this statement is a sign of your resignation to my beliefs.
If we are 100% free to do as we wish (This means breaking the law too, if you wish to break it and face the consecuences) it would mean that our surroundings do not affect at all on our actions. Do you think a person born in Africa would act exactly the same in front of a situation as a person born in Europe?Quote:
Do you have to rape people? If you must break the laws, then your going to have a lot less friends than even corrupt CEOs.
But if you're not talking about breaking the law, then of course we're completely free and in control. Maybe some people don't know how to utilize control.
Yes, it is also a convention I find rather hard to understand.Quote:
Currently, however, marriage is one of the best forms of protection.
I find communism hard to apply. I find capitalism filthy to apply. I look for alternatives because I don't like the current system.Quote:
Uh, this wasn't directed at me, I don't think, but-
Instead of communism, you can go Capitalist!
And yes, it was not directed at you.
God, you sound like Karl Popper. This sounds good in theory, however take into account the culture. Take into account apathy, ignorance, alienation, manipulation...it's not that easy. Specially when the democratic process is not as nice to bring that to dominance.Quote:
So what's the solution, then?
Simple: Everyone decides what they want to believe in. If enough people want to live in a particular way, then the democratic process will let that way come to dominance. It's petty that one system should feel compelled to annihilate everything that disagrees with its own dogma.
Change needs to occur simply for survival. Our current way of life is unsustainable. Most people don't care. How is that going to help? The masses will only move when this unsustainable facto becomes so obvious it will affect daily lifes.
Geez, this reminds me why I chose the career I chose.
Bush just drove through my town today, I was there.
Didn't he pull out of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol? No way that can be good. The strongest country in teh world pulling out of an agreement to reduce air pollution... while the REST OF THE WORLD agrees wif it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TasteyPies
~~~FreaQ
i don't agree with it, so not the rest of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreaQaZoiD
Anyway kyoto is too extreme especially for the heavily industrialised nations USA, UK, Japan the cost to the economy would be massive so bush chose to abandon it. The biggest polluters(in proportion) are in fact 3rd world coutries who are wholly exempt from kyoto which is a flawed treaty.
Not to nitpick, but a VERY easy mistake to point out is claiming that there were WMD's in Iraq.
Another, more serious claim is the fact that Iraq is becoming more stable day by day and it's a matter of time before we install a democracy there when the truth is almost the exact opposite. When Colin Powell says something, I think it would be wise to listen to him, El Presidente.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...t_pe/us_iraq_8
Take care all.
Maybe not by the time America stepped in (even though that's questionable, as well), but Iraq certainly had weapons of mass destruction up untill not so long ago. The last report of such weapons, made by UN inspectors (or some-such, maybe covert operatives instead) was in 1998. Let's not forget that in the 1980s Saddam used those WMDs, too.Quote:
Not to nitpick, but a VERY easy mistake to point out is claiming that there were WMD's in Iraq.
The mere notion that America will be able to instill democratic values and regime in Iraq (or any other Muslim nation, for that matter) makes me giggle like a bass-voiced schoolgirl.Quote:
Another, more serious claim is the fact that Iraq is becoming more stable day by day and it's a matter of time before we install a democracy there when the truth is almost the exact opposite.
Just when I thought my opinion of you couldn't go any lower....Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasteypies
I'm not voting any of those choices. I'm not a Bush supporter, and I probably never will be. Bin Laden is still alive. The Iraq war wasn't really justified, when you think about the fact that it Iraq ans Saddam wasn't really affecting us when we went to war with them last year.
I don't have a whole lot of love for Kerry (Personally, I think it would've been great to see Howard Dean get the candidate nomination.), but I think he'd do a better job than Bush has been doing so far.
Howard dean would have been nice, but i would kill to have kucinich as the nominee. I loved that guy. Everything he stood for, and everything he wanted to accomplish, i agreed with. Hell, this guy wanted to open a department of peace' But no, we have to have some guy like kerry who is not much better than bush. Sad... it really is.